baydoll
New Member
And the LAST group on your list: HUMAN
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens archaic
Homo sapiens neandertalensis
Homo sapiens sapiens
First: Homo Habilis
And the rest to follow....
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo sapiens archaic
Homo sapiens neandertalensis
Homo sapiens sapiens
First: Homo Habilis
(sorry no link as this is from his book Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation which is AWESOME btw)In June 1973, the national Geographic magazine pulbinshed an article that was devasting to the conventional ideas about human evolution. It reported a new find in Kenya, Africa by anthropologist Richard Leakey, the leading evolutionary expert on the so called Hominid ancestors of the homo sapiens. The discovery was called Skull 1470 for its catalong number in the Kenya national museum.
Leaky made and astounding challenge, highlighted prominently in bold letters by National Geographic: “Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man.”
The anthropologist said this fossil was 2.8 million years old yet it belongs to man’s genus. In other words, Leakey claimed it was more man-like than any of the other near man relics on the chart. The problem was that the skull was found neneath vocanic ash that had been acceptably dated for years by evolutionists reckoning as 2.6 million yars old. That would make a human looking ancestor over a million years older than our nearest ape-like ancestor. It’s no wonder Leakey made the puzzling statement “It simply fits no previous models of human beginnings.”
And because of the skull’s “surprisingly large braincase,” Leakey shockingly admitted, “it leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.”
Keep in mind that the National Geographic Society is a major financial supporter of field explorations (including Leakey’s) to find fresh new speciments to put on the line up of man’s evolutionary origins. It is worth noting that they are willing to publish such discoveries with considerable fanfare even when they are controversial.
Let’s realize the implications of Leakey’s comments. He stated that the chart with which we have all become familiar with is now a notion left in ruins. The orderly sequence of evolutionary change apparently does not rate any better than a notion.
In his thoroughly researched book Bones of Contention, author Marvin Lubenow brings to light that the facial bones were not clearly connected enough to know for sure if the face should be flat like a human or with jaw extended like an ape. As he further pointed out, “Home habilis is a flawed taxon, or category, because it is a mixture of fossils that can legitimately be called human, and other fossils that are definetly NOT HUMAN.”
Well now we have a problem. Evolutionists can’t have a candidate for a missing link that is admitted to have a skull qualifying as a modern man, but that dates back to over two and a half million years ago. This paradox continues for almost a decade.
Finally, in 1981, evolutionists came up with a technical way to adjust the the radiometric date and assign a revised age for the volcanic ash strata under which the skull was found. Now they are saying it less than two million years old and the othe homo habilis fossils are dated much younger. All of them are contemporary with the human looking characters called Homo erectus near the end of the chart.
Since Homo habilis physically looks like a true man, regardless of the age they assign it how can it be something evolving to man? What would they do if they found human looking bones in the same geologic age assigned to the dinosaurs? Will they push man’s origin back 100 million years or figure a way to reassign the age of rocks again? Just wait and you will learn about even more mysterious finds (mysterious only because they don’t fit the commonly accepted evolutionary beliefs about human beginnings.) Dennis R Peterson
And the rest to follow....